is it "...to better understand" or "...to understand better" ?!?
go...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
--
sameer goyal
go...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Colette D Marine
>
>--
>
>sameer goyal
>go...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
It's the same either way, isn't it? Better is an adverb. Just try
putting any other adverb in there, and the order of the words doesn't
matter.
... to quickly understand
... to understand quickly
... to easily understand
... to understand easily
It's all the same.
Paul D. Shan
Actually, if you want to be stuffy and formal, to ever split an infinitive is
wrong, according to the grammar book I've been taught from. Heh...I've got to
quit making these grammatical errors.
Have fun!
Paul Shan
G Toal
"My Grandmama, what a big brain you've got!"
"All the better to understand you with, my Dear..."
G
Roger Lustig
upset those who don't like "split infinitives," but it's often the less
clumsy way to go.
R
Andrew Dunstan
ravings I am not prescribing grammar (two spoonfuls at bedtime) for
anybody.)
HOWEVER, I and many others will think slightly more highly of you if
you don't say "to better understand".
#######################################################################
# Andrew Dunstan # There's nothing good or bad #
# Department of Computer Science # but thinking makes it so. #
# University of Adelaide # #
# South Australia # - Shakespeare #
# net: and...@cs.adelaide.edu.au # #
#######################################################################
Colette D Marine
>In article <1991May29.1...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> col...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Colette D Marine) writes:
>>
>>It's the same either way, isn't it? Better is an adverb. Just try
>>putting any other adverb in there, and the order of the words doesn't
>>matter.
>>
>> ... to quickly understand
>> ... to understand quickly
>>
>> ... to easily understand
>> ... to understand easily
>>
>>It's all the same.
>>
>
>infinitives" are they not (like "to boldly go") and hence illegal ?
Well, now, that depends on whether or not you subscribe to the "grammar
is god" school of theory. I prefer to temper my grammar with a little
bit of practicality.
Reminds me of another question, though. I was taught that "whether or
not" was a ridiculous phrase and should not be used. The word
"whether" should stand alone. I'm still using it, though, 'cause I
like it better (so there!). What do other people think?
Ian Newman
>
>putting any other adverb in there, and the order of the words doesn't
>matter.
>
> ... to quickly understand
> ... to understand quickly
>
> ... to easily understand
> ... to understand easily
>
>It's all the same.
>
To quickly understand - to easily understand - these are known as "split
infinitives" are they not (like "to boldly go") and hence illegal ?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Newman, BNR Europe Ltd., European Transmission Systems Engineering,
Network Management Engineering Centre (Dept. 30770),
Oakleigh Road South, New Southgate, London N11 1HB.
Milt Epstein
>
>Reminds me of another question, though. I was taught that "whether or
>not" was a ridiculous phrase and should not be used. The word
>"whether" should stand alone. I'm still using it, though, 'cause I
>like it better (so there!). What do other people think?
I used to use "whether or not" until I heard the same thing. After
that, for the most part I have only used "whether" alone and usually
think it sounds better. However, I still occasionally come across a
case where I think "whether or not" sounds better (although, of
course, I can't think of such an example right now :-).
--
Milt Epstein
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois
eps...@cs.uiuc.edu
Dave Cochran
Except that split infinitives should be avoided whenever possible.
(Sorry, it's been about 3 whole days since anyone screamed about pedants and
split infinitives, so I thought I'd take a shot.)
--
+------------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran (coc...@spam.rtp.dg.com) |
|Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC |
+------------------------------------------------------+
|Just suppose there were no hypothetical situations... |
+------------------------------------------------------+
Paul Crowley
who cares if this happens to cheekily split an infinitive.
____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley ai...@castle.ed.ac.uk \ /
/\__/ Part straight. Part gay. All queer. \/
"I say we kill him and eat his brain."
"That's not the solution to _every_ problem, you know!" -- Rudy Rucker
Peter Moylan
col...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Colette D Marine) writes:
>
> Reminds me of another question, though. I was taught that "whether or
> not" was a ridiculous phrase and should not be used.
I don't mind whether you use it or not. Still, there can be a subtle
shift of meaning in some cases. I can't think of good examples using
"whether", but consider the following related examples.
(a) When my wife asks me "Are you going to wash the dishes?" I hear this
as a genuine question, and feel free to answer "yes" or "no"
depending on my plans.
(b) When she says "Are you going to wash the dishes or not?" I detect
an undercurrent of criticism or pressure. This annoys me to the
extent that I am likely to respond with a short, sharp, and
ambiguous "yes".
Peter Moylan ee...@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Alan Chantler (CS)
>I vote for "...to better understand..." since the rhythm is better. And
>who cares if this happens to cheekily split an infinitive.
> ____
in order better to understand what is meant?
--
Al...@coventry.ac.uk | Post: Coventry Polytechnic
JANET: Al...@uk.ac.coventry | Priory Street
INET : AlanC%coventr...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | Coventry, UK
Phone: +44 203 838332 | CV1 5FB
Roger Lustig
>>It's the same either way, isn't it? Better is an adverb. Just try
>>putting any other adverb in there, and the order of the words doesn't
>>matter.
>> ... to quickly understand
>> ... to understand quickly
>> ... to easily understand
>> ... to understand easily
>>It's all the same.
>To quickly understand - to easily understand - these are known as "split
>infinitives" are they not (like "to boldly go") and hence illegal ?
According to whose law?
The "Split infinitive" business came about when somebody decided that
the "to" was part of the infinitive, which it really isn't. We use a
"to" in some infinitive constructions, not in others. The misconception
crept in the usual way: Latin grammar was used as a standard for English
grammar. And since LAtin infinitives CAN'T be split, someone figured
that English ones SHOULDn'T be.
The problem with the rule is that we like to construct and reconstruct
sentences with as little effort as possible.
"We will actually understand this next year."
"We will attempt to actually understand this next year."
Why fiddle around with the word order when going from one to the other?
"Actually" is stuck to "Understand," and would prefer to remain there,
thank you...
Roger
Roger Lustig
>In article <1991May30.0...@tcom.stc.co.uk> ia...@tcom.stc.co.uk (Ian Newman) writes:
>>To quickly understand - to easily understand - these are known as "split
>>infinitives" are they not (like "to boldly go") and hence illegal ?
>Well, now, that depends on whether or not you subscribe to the "grammar
>is god" school of theory. I prefer to temper my grammar with a little
>bit of practicality.
Grammar IS God. The "split infinitive" theory is a false god. 8-)
>Reminds me of another question, though. I was taught that "whether or
>not" was a ridiculous phrase and should not be used. The word
>"whether" should stand alone. I'm still using it, though, 'cause I
>like it better (so there!). What do other people think?
It's an intensifier. An idiom of the English language. Some people
want to cow you into silence, or get off on telling you how to talk.
Ignore them.
Roger Lustig
>Except that split infinitives should be avoided whenever possible.
>(Sorry, it's been about 3 whole days since anyone screamed about pedants and
>split infinitives, so I thought I'd take a shot.)
OK: now tell us WHY. Tell us where you got the rule, on what grounds
it is argued, and why you think it's valid.
Roger
Robert Mollitor
>In article <10...@castle.ed.ac.uk> ai...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>>I vote for "...to better understand..." since the rhythm is better. And
>>who cares if this happens to cheekily split an infinitive.
>> ____
> I do for one. Surely we should say "...better to understand..."
> in order better to understand what is meant?
"You should set aside plenty of time in order re-to organize your desk."?
robt
--
Robert Mollitor rob...@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!robert
Colette D Marine
>In article <S-C*7...@cck.cov.ac.uk> csx...@uk.ac.cov.cck (Alan Chantler (CS)) writes:
>>In article <10...@castle.ed.ac.uk> ai...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>>>I vote for "...to better understand..." since the rhythm is better. And
>>>who cares if this happens to cheekily split an infinitive.
>>> ____
>> I do for one. Surely we should say "...better to understand..."
>> in order better to understand what is meant?
>
>"You should set aside plenty of time in order re-to organize your desk."?
>
>robt
Funny, but not accurate. Reorganize is one verb. Therefore, "to
reorganize" is one, non-split infinitive.
Robert Mollitor
>In article <1991May31....@visix.com> rob...@visix.com (Robert Mollitor) writes:
>>In article <S-C*7...@cck.cov.ac.uk> csx...@uk.ac.cov.cck (Alan Chantler (CS)) writes:
>>>In article <10...@castle.ed.ac.uk> ai...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>>>>I vote for "...to better understand..." since the rhythm is better. And
>>>>who cares if this happens to cheekily split an infinitive.
>>>> ____
>>> I do for one. Surely we should say "...better to understand..."
>>> in order better to understand what is meant?
>>
>>"You should set aside plenty of time in order re-to organize your desk."?
>>
>>robt
>
>Funny, but not accurate. Reorganize is one verb.
Really? (sarcasm)
What about meta-organize, or whatever.
>Therefore, "to reorganize" is one, non-split infinitive.
Why can't "better understand" be considered the verb-like unit
for which "to better understand" is the infinitive.
(Actually, I accept the arguments presented here that "reorganize" and
"understand" are the infinitives, and that they cannot be 'split'.)
Why should "to better understand" bother anyone any more than
"the larger grandstand" does? If people can parse the latter,
they can parse the former. After all, I would think that an adjective
is more easily confused with an noun, than an adverb is with a verb.
Andrew Dunstan
Shan) writes:
|> All this talk about infinitives is getting long. Some like the idea of
|> never splitting one, while others (myself included) think it's OK to split
|> one. Why can't a new type of phrase be introduced into English grammar,
|> namely "the infinitive phrase." Most phrase constructions in grammar today
|> serve one purpose (prepositional as an adjective, etc). This type of phrase
|> would be no different.
|>
|> Just a thought to chew on.
I find this phenomenon of making something legitimate by giving it a
new name interesting. Is the network populated by nominalists out there?
You are right. Some (like you) thing that splitting infinitives is
acceptable, whenever and however occurring. Others (like me) think
that it is at least a practice that should generally be avoided.
This is not a matter of clarity but of style. I find the construct
UGLY, and so do not usually use it. It just grates in my ears when I
come across it.
But you will not make it acceptable to me by giving it a new name, nor
convince me that it does not exist by using a restrictive definition.
|> -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Paul Shan | "Music is a shout of foregone conclusions,
|> PD...@psuvm.psu.edu | as long as music plays its part"
|> ***************************** - YES, "Our Song", 90125
|> * Unless otherwise stated,
*--------------------------------------------------
|> * what I say here is my own * "Always be nice, until it's time to not
be nice."
|> * and not Penn State's. * - From the movie "Roadhouse"
|>
*****************************--------------------------------------------------
Your signature is a case in point. To me, it would sound better to say
"... until it's time not to be nice." or better yet " ... until it's
time to be nasty."
Roger Lustig
>In article <10...@idunno.Princeton.EDU>, ro...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
>(Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>|> The "Split infinitive" business came about when somebody decided that
>|> the "to" was part of the infinitive, which it really isn't. We use a
>|> "to" in some infinitive constructions, not in others. The misconception
>|> crept in the usual way: Latin grammar was used as a standard for English
>|> grammar. And since LAtin infinitives CAN'T be split, someone figured
>|> that English ones SHOULDn'T be.
>These attempts to define away the problem are immensely amusing. They
>remind me of the time that a Bill was passed in the (I think) Illinois
>legislature to make Pi equal to 3.2. They are doomed to equal failure.
>It is, I think, legitimate to debate the validity of a rule prohibiting
>split infinitives. But to try to define the problem away like this seems
>to me to be crazy.
Uh, right. So grammar is derived from the same sort of natural laws
and mathematical laws as determine the specific gravity of gold or the
value of pi???????
No, terms like "split infinitive" are NAMES we give to things. And
since English grammar rules were developed by analogy to Latin grammar
rules in the first place, there's often a bit of slippage in meaning.
Whether "run" or "to run" is the infinitive depends not only on how
we've defined "infinitive" (note that there's no problem with defining
the CONCEPT of pi, as opposed -- in the mythical Indiana Legislature
case -- to defining its value); and the definition we choose should have
something to do with why we CARE about the issue in English.
The issue of "what's the infinitive" is by nomeans as settled as the
matter of "what does pi represent". The argument I was using comes from
the Journal of the Society for Pure English, sometime in the 30's.
Besides, as deep as you go into the matter, we are at BEST talking about
STYLE. There is no way in hell you're going to demonstrate that split
infinitives are not part of English grammar and usage. Sentences can
be, and often are, parsed quite satisfactorily by ACTUAL USERS of the
language -- even while containing split infinitives.
Roger
Paul D. Shan
never splitting one, while others (myself included) think it's OK to split
one. Why can't a new type of phrase be introduced into English grammar,
namely "the infinitive phrase." Most phrase constructions in grammar today
serve one purpose (prepositional as an adjective, etc). This type of phrase
would be no different.
Just a thought to chew on.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Dunstan
|> The "Split infinitive" business came about when somebody decided that
|> the "to" was part of the infinitive, which it really isn't. We use a
|> "to" in some infinitive constructions, not in others. The misconception
|> crept in the usual way: Latin grammar was used as a standard for English
|> grammar. And since LAtin infinitives CAN'T be split, someone figured
|> that English ones SHOULDn'T be.
|>
|> The problem with the rule is that we like to construct and reconstruct
|> sentences with as little effort as possible.
|>
|> "We will actually understand this next year."
|> "We will attempt to actually understand this next year."
|>
|> Why fiddle around with the word order when going from one to the other?
|> "Actually" is stuck to "Understand," and would prefer to remain there,
|> thank you...
Well, I must say that I am glad to have had the preferences of a word
explained to me, by (I take it) its official spokesman. I had no idea
that words were sentient, but now that I find they are I suppose that
their feelings will have to be taken into account. Bang goes a lifetime
of trying to master words - they will have to be given their democratic
rights now. (smiley this time, Roger!)
According to the copy of the OED which I consulted, "to" IS a part of the
dative infinitive. It also defines a split infinitive and gives an example
from Byron.
These attempts to define away the problem are immensely amusing. They
remind me of the time that a Bill was passed in the (I think) Illinois
legislature to make Pi equal to 3.2. They are doomed to equal failure.
It is, I think, legitimate to debate the validity of a rule prohibiting
split infinitives. But to try to define the problem away like this seems
to me to be crazy.
#######################################################################
Roger Lustig
>>I vote for "...to better understand..." since the rhythm is better. And
>>who cares if this happens to cheekily split an infinitive.
>> ____
> I do for one. Surely we should say "...better to understand..."
> in order better to understand what is meant?
I give up. How does the split infinitive affect the meaning? I've been
waiting since third grade for an explanation.
Roger
Roger Lustig
>Shan) writes:
>|> All this talk about infinitives is getting long. Some like the idea of
>|> never splitting one, while others (myself included) think it's OK to split
>|> one. Why can't a new type of phrase be introduced into English grammar,
>|> namely "the infinitive phrase." Most phrase constructions in grammar today
>|> serve one purpose (prepositional as an adjective, etc). This type of phrase
>|> would be no different.
>|> Just a thought to chew on.
>I find this phenomenon of making something legitimate by giving it a
>new name interesting. Is the network populated by nominalists out there?
No, but some of us know where grammatical terms come from, and why we
use them.
>You are right. Some (like you) thing that splitting infinitives is
>acceptable, whenever and however occurring. Others (like me) think
>that it is at least a practice that should generally be avoided.
>This is not a matter of clarity but of style. I find the construct
>UGLY, and so do not usually use it. It just grates in my ears when I
>come across it.
>But you will not make it acceptable to me by giving it a new name, nor
>convince me that it does not exist by using a restrictive definition.
OK: tell us two things.
What's wrong with the new definition?
In fact, why do you call it a new definition? It is something quite
different: a new APPROACH to looking at words, a different
CATEGORIZATION. Not the same thing as redefinition at all.
Now tell us a third thing: what was so compelling about the OLD
definition? "Infinitive" in English is the thing that works mroe or
less the way the Latin infinitive does. It has ALWAYS been defined by
analogy.
The analogy is not complete, as verbs in English don't function the same
way they do in Latin. Lack of inflection has a lot to do with it. So
does the construction of verb phrases.
So why insist that there be a thing called "infinitive" to begin with?
Why not go about describing our own language based on the things that
actually happen in it? "better understand" works just like
"understand": you can manipulate it as though it were one word, in all
the situations in which we place the words together. Only when we go
to use the "to" construction do some people wince. (We also don't use
it in certain tenses.) But infinitive and participle constructions are
otherwise so similar that changing the word-order in our
word-order-dependent language is often too much for people to do when
speaking -- or writing plainly. More precisely, the language doesn't
work that way.
Roger
Andrew Dunstan
1. I am not saying that you are not entitled to your view that split
infinitives are allowable. But I am not seduced by the introduction
of new definitions, approaches, catgorizations or whatever. Why not
just say that split infinitives are OK?
2. I do not rely on Latin for analogy. In the case of the infinitive
the analogy is, as you say, very incomplete. Given all the hype about
the imposition of Latin grammar rules on English it is surprising that
you seek to have reference to it.
3. I strenuously dispute the assertion that changing word order is often
too much for people to do when speaking - or writing plainly. It is
simply an acquired habit. I don't have to think about it; I just do it
(well, most of the time!).
4. There are some linguistic anarchists out there. I am not one of them.
I believe that grammar is to some extent both prescriptive and descriptive.
5. Neither am I a linguistic rationalist. Many rules of grammar and spelling
are highly irrational. I don't think this gives them less force.
Natalie Maynor
>3. I strenuously dispute the assertion that changing word order is often
>too much for people to do when speaking - or writing plainly. It is
>simply an acquired habit. I don't have to think about it; I just do it
>(well, most of the time!).
If most English speakers "just do it" the other way, why should they try
to acquire a new habit? Is "to better understand" less clear than "to
understand better"? It's not to me.
>I believe that grammar is to some extent both prescriptive and descriptive.
Huh? How can grammar be prescriptive or descriptive?? Grammar is grammar.
People may prescribe and describe; grammar doesn't.
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Andrew Dunstan
Maynor) writes:
|> and...@chook.adelaide.edu.au (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
|>
|> >3. I strenuously dispute the assertion that changing word order is often
|> >too much for people to do when speaking - or writing plainly. It is
|> >simply an acquired habit. I don't have to think about it; I just do it
|> >(well, most of the time!).
|>
|> If most English speakers "just do it" the other way, why should they try
|> to acquire a new habit? Is "to better understand" less clear than "to
|> understand better"? It's not to me.
Neither is it to me. I have never claimed that clarity is the basis for
the rule. There are other considerations. Is it clear what is meant by
"John and me went to the shop"? Yes, perfectly clear. Is it grammatical?
Not at all.
|>
|> >I believe that grammar is to some extent both prescriptive and descriptive.
|>
|> Huh? How can grammar be prescriptive or descriptive?? Grammar is grammar.
|> People may prescribe and describe; grammar doesn't.
Does this have a familiar flavour? The gun nuts are fond of saying that
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people." This is a similar piece
of nonsense. However, I will reformulate it if you like: People use
the formulations of grammar both to prescribe and to describe the
language. Both uses are legitimate (IMHO).
Andrew Dunstan
Maynor) writes:
|> and...@chook.adelaide.edu.au (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
|>
|> >Neither is it to me. I have never claimed that clarity is the basis for
|> >the rule. There are other considerations. Is it clear what is meant by
|> >"John and me went to the shop"? Yes, perfectly clear. Is it grammatical?
|> >Not at all.
|>
|> "grammatical." Of course "John and me went to the shop" is "grammatical."
|> It's simply non-standard usage.
|>
The Concide OED gives the following:
grammar: ... person's manner of using grammatical forms ...
... the rules of grammar; what is correct according to those rules ...
grammatical: ... conforming to the rules of grammar ...
I understand all this perfectly well. Indeed, this meaning is
what I was asserting.
|> >of nonsense. However, I will reformulate it if you like: People use
|> >the formulations of grammar both to prescribe and to describe the
|> >language. Both uses are legitimate (IMHO).
|>
|> The "formulations of grammar"?? Hmmmm. I assume you mean that people
|> put together phonemes, morphemes, and larger units to prescribe and
|> describe. I'll agree with you on that. People put together phonemes,
|> morphemes, and larger units to make pronouncements about any subject.
|> --
|> --Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Don't put words into my mouth. By "formulations" I merely meant "rules".
Natalie Maynor
>Neither is it to me. I have never claimed that clarity is the basis for
>the rule. There are other considerations. Is it clear what is meant by
>"John and me went to the shop"? Yes, perfectly clear. Is it grammatical?
>Not at all.
You obviously do not understand the meaning of the words "grammar" and
"grammatical." Of course "John and me went to the shop" is "grammatical."
It's simply non-standard usage.
>of nonsense. However, I will reformulate it if you like: People use
>the formulations of grammar both to prescribe and to describe the
>language. Both uses are legitimate (IMHO).
The "formulations of grammar"?? Hmmmm. I assume you mean that people
Roger Lustig
>1. I am not saying that you are not entitled to your view that split
>infinitives are allowable. But I am not seduced by the introduction
>of new definitions, approaches, catgorizations or whatever. Why not
>just say that split infinitives are OK?
Because the issue rvolves around the silly concept of "splitting" an
infinitive in the first place! Sure, the term means "putting a word
between "to" and the infinitive"; but the rule AGAINST it derives form
the idea of the infinitive being like the Latin one, etc.
>2. I do not rely on Latin for analogy. In the case of the infinitive
>the analogy is, as you say, very incomplete. Given all the hype about
>the imposition of Latin grammar rules on English it is surprising that
>you seek to have reference to it.
Only to demonstrate that there's all kinds of confusion about what the
thing is in the first place.
>3. I strenuously dispute the assertion that changing word order is often
>too much for people to do when speaking - or writing plainly. It is
Well, OK; but the evidence is there. Linguists actually go and listen
to what people SAY; and very fine speakers and writers have been known
to split an infinitive in the heat of battle. all the time, in fact.
>simply an acquired habit. I don't have to think about it; I just do it
>(well, most of the time!).
One more point: the s-i problem is a new one. Dates back to the second
half of the 19th C. WHY? Because the CONSTRUCTION involving the
infinitive that might lead to the split only arose around 1850.
"He decided to investigate."
Before 1850, one tended to say: "He decided that he would investigate."
Now, for bedtime reading, check out Evans and Evans and the discussion
(under "split infinitive" of sentences that REQUIRE the s-i.
>4. There are some linguistic anarchists out there. I am not one of them.
>I believe that grammar is to some extent both prescriptive and descriptive.
Name a linguistic anarchist. Are you perhaps referring to those who
actually have a definition of the language, i.e., "what people say when
communicating"? Linguists NEVER claim that "anything goes;" they note
which things DO go, instead of trying to order the waves back. Language
is a SYSTEM; that's why we can use it.
>5. Neither am I a linguistic rationalist. Many rules of grammar and spelling
>are highly irrational. I don't think this gives them less force.
Indeed; linguistic logicians tend to get themselves into all kinds of
trouble.
Roger
Dave Cochran
|> never splitting one, while others (myself included) think it's OK to split
|> one. Why can't a new type of phrase be introduced into English grammar,
|> namely "the infinitive phrase." Most phrase constructions in grammar today
|> serve one purpose (prepositional as an adjective, etc). This type of phrase
|> would be no different.
|>
|> Just a thought to chew on.
Shouldn't that be "....a thought on which to chew"?
:-)
^
|
Note the smiley, please.
Natalie Maynor
>|> "grammatical." Of course "John and me went to the shop" is "grammatical."
>|> It's simply non-standard usage.
>The Concide OED gives the following:
>grammar: ... person's manner of using grammatical forms ...
> ... the rules of grammar; what is correct according to those rules ...
>grammatical: ... conforming to the rules of grammar ...
>I understand all this perfectly well. Indeed, this meaning is
>what I was asserting.
Your problem is with the word "rules." The "rules of grammar" are the
principles acquired effortlessly by small children. "John and me went
to the shop" is grammatical English. Native speakers do not violate the
GRAMMAR of their native language, although they may deviate from what is
accepted as standard USAGE.
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Andrew Dunstan
|>
|> Your problem is with the word "rules." The "rules of grammar" are the
|> principles acquired effortlessly by small children. "John and me went
|> to the shop" is grammatical English. Native speakers do not violate the
|> GRAMMAR of their native language, although they may deviate from what is
|> accepted as standard USAGE.
|> --
|> --Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
I don't accept this. Knowledge of rules may be acquired in a variety
of ways, including by example. I teach my son to speak well by a combination
of example, by encouraging him to read widely, by EXPOUNDING THE RULES TO HIM,
and by correction. I am proud of the fact that all who meet him describe him
as well-spoken.
Jim Scobbie
>I don't accept this. Knowledge of rules may be acquired in a variety
>of ways, including by example. I teach my son to speak well by a combination
>of example, by encouraging him to read widely, by EXPOUNDING THE RULES TO HIM,
>and by correction. I am proud of the fact that all who meet him describe him
>as well-spoken.
An important part of language development is ignoring what the speech community
aruond you says. The young child learns 'dogs' 'men' 'fish' from
example, but soon begins to form a rule. At that point it produces forms
it has never heard from the speech community, like 'mans' 'fishes'
'childrens' and so on. Also children systematically ignore correction is all
the important parts of their language development.
My mum always wanted me to play with other little boys who 'spoke nicely'.
I always hated them... beware! ;-)
Finally, 99% (a random figure, I could have said 99.9% or 90%)
of grammar is unavailable to conscious thought. The bits that are are like
our knowledge or writing rather than our knowledge of language. This is
an important distinction --- most languages are, and have always been purely
oral. The essential parts of linguistic development are not under your
control. You don't even know what they are (nor does anyone).
--
-------
Jim Scobbie, Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150
(Previously at Edinburgh)
Natalie Maynor
>I don't accept this. Knowledge of rules may be acquired in a variety
>of ways, including by example. I teach my son to speak well by a combination
>of example, by encouraging him to read widely, by EXPOUNDING THE RULES TO HIM,
>and by correction. I am proud of the fact that all who meet him describe him
>as well-spoken.
If your son is old enough to read, he is past the age of acquiring
the rules of grammar. And rules of grammar cannot be taught -- by anyone.
Linguistic research has shown repeatedly and without exception that parental
"correction" during a child's language-acquisition stage is completely
futile.
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Roger Lustig
>In article <nm1.67...@Ra.MsState.Edu>, n...@ra.MsState.Edu (Natalie
>Maynor) writes:
>|> Your problem is with the word "rules." The "rules of grammar" are the
>|> principles acquired effortlessly by small children. "John and me went
>|> to the shop" is grammatical English. Native speakers do not violate the
>|> GRAMMAR of their native language, although they may deviate from what is
>|> accepted as standard USAGE.
>
>I don't accept this. Knowledge of rules may be acquired in a variety
>of ways, including by example. I teach my son to speak well by a combination
>of example, by encouraging him to read widely, by EXPOUNDING THE RULES TO HIM,
Do you KNOW the rules of grammar, or only the rules of how Andrew
Dunstan thinks he ought to talk?
You've indicated some confusion between grammar, usage, and style here.
>and by correction. I am proud of the fact that all who meet him describe him
>as well-spoken.
Good for him. If you hadn't expounded your rules, would he be less-so?
And what do people mean by "well-spoken?" That he doesn't use certain
colloquialisms? That he never splits an infinitive?
roger
Ruth Milner
>If your son is old enough to read, he is past the age of acquiring
>the rules of grammar. And rules of grammar cannot be taught -- by anyone.
>Linguistic research has shown repeatedly and without exception that parental
>"correction" during a child's language-acquisition stage is completely
>futile.
I don't believe this at all. During my baby-sitting career :-), I often saw
children change the way they said something as a direct result of parental
correction. And I can actually remember doing that myself.
My parents, particularly my father, corrected my usage all through childhood
(and well into adulthood, for that matter :-) ). My father taught me to read
when I was 3. Perhaps by that time I was past the initial stages of language
acquisition, but I was certainly not beyond being able to refine my under-
standing of how words were used, i.e. the rules of grammar.
If their efforts had been "without exception ... futile", and I had learned
only by the examples of others around me, my grammar, speech, and spelling
would now be abysmal.
I also had a teacher for grades 5 and 6 who placed great emphasis on spelling,
*formal* rules of grammar, and handwriting. That truly did help, especially
with written composition.
I for one will be not at all discouraged by the linguistic research you refer
to. Any children I have will be *taught* to speak well. It certainly worked
for me, although I suppose your mileage may vary :-).
--
Ruth Milner
Systems Manager NRAO/VLA Socorro NM
Computing Division Head rmi...@zia.aoc.nrao.edu
Andrew Dunstan
|> If your son is old enough to read, he is past the age of acquiring
|> the rules of grammar. And rules of grammar cannot be taught -- by anyone.
|> Linguistic research has shown repeatedly and without exception that parental
|> "correction" during a child's language-acquisition stage is completely
|> futile.
I am very dubious about this. Research which comes to such broad and
sweeping conclusions arouses very deep suspicions in me.
Also, my own experience suggests otherwise.
Andrew Dunstan
|> Do you KNOW the rules of grammar, or only the rules of how Andrew
|> Dunstan thinks he ought to talk?
I do know some. Grammar is not purely private, because language is not
purely private. I don't claim to be always right, but I don't deny the
possibility of being right, either.
|> You've indicated some confusion between grammar, usage, and style here.
|>
|> >and by correction. I am proud of the fact that all who meet him
describe him
|> >as well-spoken.
|>
|> Good for him. If you hadn't expounded your rules, would he be less-so?
People who know neither him nor me say not. My experience suggests the
converse.
|> And what do people mean by "well-spoken?" That he doesn't use certain
|> colloquialisms? That he never splits an infinitive?
Roger, I've been on the "split infinitive" merry-go-round twice, and that
is more than enough. Of course that's not what I mean by well-spoken.
It is interesting that you seem to think that I define it in negative
terms only. Not so. Generally I mean that he speaks fluently, uses a
wide vocabulary well, and uses elegant and varied constructions. This
is partly a function of his personality and partly a function of his
above-average mastery of the language.
G Toal
:people on this list have about what grammar is. :-)
:
:As I think I've said before, people interested enough in language to be
:spending time reading and contributing to this list really should take
:the time to browse through an introductory textbook on linguistics.
:--
: --Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Actually, some of us have! It came as a shock to me to discover
that Chomsky (whom we computer types claim as our own) is a big
noise in the linguistic world too. And I thought all this grammar
stuff was just for feeding into yacc...
Graham.
(PS Talking of cunning linguists, give a hug to Spud for me when she
gets back...)
---
Grammar I can hack; it's the sin tax that kills me...
Ruth Milner
>>>If your son is old enough to read, he is past the age of acquiring
>>>the rules of grammar. And rules of grammar cannot be taught -- by anyone.
>>My parents, particularly my father, corrected my usage all through childhood
>Thanks for proving my original point about the misunderstanding various
>people on this list have about what grammar is. :-)
>
>As I think I've said before, people interested enough in language to be
>spending time reading and contributing to this list really should take
>the time to browse through an introductory textbook on linguistics.
Phooey (I thought of other ways to put that but decided to forego the pleasure
:-) ).
This list is called "alt.usage.english", not alt.grammar.english or
alt.linguistics. If reading postings from the uneducated masses offends you,
stop reading them. Put me in your KILL file or something.
I was going to write a lot more, but I won't waste the bandwidth.
Paul Crowley
>It came as a shock to me to discover that Chomsky (whom we computer
>types claim as our own) is a big noise in the linguistic world too.
We do? News to me.
It came as a shock to me to discover that Chomsky (whom those linguistic
types claim as their own) is a big noise in the political world. He's
one of the US's leading anti-imperialist writers.
____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley ai...@castle.ed.ac.uk \ /
/\__/ Part straight. Part gay. All queer. \/
"I say we kill him and eat his brain."
"That's not the solution to _every_ problem, you know!" -- Rudy Rucker
Natalie Maynor
>This list is called "alt.usage.english", not alt.grammar.english or
>alt.linguistics. If reading postings from the uneducated masses offends you,
>stop reading them. Put me in your KILL file or something.
A forum for discussing usage is fine. It seems fair to assume, however,
that those interested in discussing usage might have some idea what usage
is -- i.e., not confuse it with grammar. If I joined a forum called
alt.tigers, I would assume that at least the contributors and perhaps
even the lurkers knew the difference between tigers and lions.
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Richard Wexelblat
>>It came as a shock to me to discover that Chomsky (whom we computer
>>types claim as our own) is a big noise in the linguistic world too.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>We do? News to me.
>
>It came as a shock to me to discover that Chomsky (whom those linguistic
>types claim as their own) is a big noise in the political world. He's
>one of the US's leading anti-imperialist writers.
Chomsky (which, the first time I met him, he pronounced with the German
"hard ch") has a Ph.D. in Linguistics from UPenn, 1961+-2. His advisor
was Zelig Harris.
--
--Dick Wexelblat (r...@ida.org) 703 845 6601
It has been discovered that fully half of the children tested have a
below average IQ!
Rita Marie Rouvalis
>In article <10...@castle.ed.ac.uk> ai...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>>In article <10...@castle.ed.ac.uk> gt...@castle.ed.ac.uk (G Toal) writes:
>>>It came as a shock to me to discover that Chomsky (whom we computer
>>>types claim as our own) is a big noise in the linguistic world too.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>We do? News to me.
>>
>>It came as a shock to me to discover that Chomsky (whom those linguistic
>>types claim as their own) is a big noise in the political world. He's
>>one of the US's leading anti-imperialist writers.
>
Chomsky used to (and may still) make frequent appearances at
UMASS Boston. I used to make a point to go and hear him speak. He's
a bit too far to the left for my liking, but his background in
linguistics makes his speeches worth hearing on their own merit.
--
Rita Marie Rouvalis (NB new address!!) ri...@eff.org
The Electronic Frontier Foundation | when this yellow rose leaned,
155 Second Street | cupping yesterday's rain,
Cambridge, MA 02141 | glassy drops extravagant and poised.
Jim Scobbie
>This list is called "alt.usage.english", not alt.grammar.english or
>alt.linguistics. If reading postings from the uneducated masses offends you,
>stop reading them. Put me in your KILL file or something.
The problem is the number of people posting about bad *grammar*, not
someone pointing out that grammar and usage are different things.
Since the list is indeed about usage, perhaps you should concentrate
your criticism elsewhere.
Paul Crowley
>"hard ch") has a Ph.D. in Linguistics from UPenn, 1961+-2. His advisor
>was Zelig Harris.
Chomsky has a Ph.D. in Linguistics.
OF COURSE CHOMSKY HAS A PH.D. IN LINGUISTICS! Chomsky completely
re-invented the science of linguistics! My linguistics tutor had a
"Gospel according to Chomsky" poster on his wall! They gave us a
one-term course in the history of linguistics basically to get across
the idea that there was linguistics before Chomsky!
I wonder if Einstein had a Ph.D. in Physics or Mathematics?
Andrew Dunstan
childhood
|>
|> Thanks for proving my original point about the misunderstanding various
|> people on this list have about what grammar is. :-)
|>
|> As I think I've said before, people interested enough in language to be
|> spending time reading and contributing to this list really should take
Do linguists have a monopoly on the use of the term "grammar"?
It seems to me that they use it as a term of art, with a rather restrictive
definition.
I, for one, do not intend to be cowed by them in this.
Natalie Maynor
>Do linguists have a monopoly on the use of the term "grammar"?
Check the order of definitions of "grammar" in any good dictionary.
>It seems to me that they use it as a term of art, with a rather restrictive
>definition.
Restrictive? Hardly. Grammar includes all the principles of phonology,
morphology, syntax, and perhaps semantics.
>I, for one, do not intend to be cowed by them in this.
If we start using "grammar" to mean "usage," what term will we use
to mean "grammar"?
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Richard Wexelblat
>re-invented the science of linguistics! My linguistics tutor had a
>"Gospel according to Chomsky" poster on his wall! They gave us a
>one-term course in the history of linguistics basically to get across
>the idea that there was linguistics before Chomsky!
>I wonder if Einstein had a Ph.D. in Physics or Mathematics?
I believe that his degree was in Natural Science (Naturwissenschaft).
Most people are unaware that his Nobel was for work in photoelectricity,
long before Relativity.
This thread is no longer relevant to the topic of this group. I suggest
it be moved elsewhere.
Ian G Batten
> re-invented the science of linguistics! My linguistics tutor had a
> "Gospel according to Chomsky" poster on his wall! They gave us a
> one-term course in the history of linguistics basically to get across
> the idea that there was linguistics before Chomsky!
Many linguists would, of course, argue that he got it wrong anyway.
I'm not qualified to do other than parrot what real linguists have told
me, but I shall say ``Halliday'' and ``Language as a social process'' in
a plonking manner (*) and hope someone knowledgeable can fill in the
gaps.
(*) Potter, before you ask.
ian
G Toal
Aha! a fellow Yeovil graduate :-)
In case anyone is still wondering what Chomsky's connexion with
computing might be, in our parser course we had Chomsky Type 0--4
grammars shovelled down our gullets until we were sick of them.
His hierarchy of production grammars (or string re-write rules as
they are often called nowadays) are still the basis of all parsing
in computer science. I've recently (since this thread started)
read a few of Chomsky's linguistic books and I'm quite surprised
to see that his work is less rigorous or formal than I had inferred
from the use of his name in the very formal field of computer
program grammars.
I can recommend 'aspects of the theory of syntax' as a nice light
read, he says plonkingly...
Regards
Graham
PS Rule no. 4 -- there is no rule no. 4... :-)
Gramzde Collya nee Ballingas
I could have sworn n...@ra.MsState.Edu (Natalie Maynor) managed to say:
with no semantic interpretation whatsoever. Therefore since people
quibbling usage are generally quibbling semantic/spelling usage,
is not grammar an inappropriate term for usage anyway?
>
>--
> --Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
--
from the office of,
James Burton. Latrobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Email bur...@latcs1.lat.oz.au
'Hic Haroldus Rex Interfectus Est'.;.'I am real!' said Alice, and began to cry.
Jim Scobbie
*a grammar* defines what sentences are part of your language, and which aren't.
*usage* selects one grammatical sentence over another as 'preferable',
prohibits the use of some sentences altogether and imposes use of some forms
the grammar would not have predicted.
A grammar is prosaic, usage poetic. Language without rules of good usage would
be a possibility, language without a grammar is an impossibility.
nb.
Roughly the same holds of the grammar of words as of sentences.--
KGO...@cmsa.gmr.com
components of a language--phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics,
phonetics, morphology. Of course, linguists also do use the term 'grammar'
in a more informal sense like many people to refer only to syntax.
The context of use (pragmatics) makes it clear which meaning is being used.
-Kurt Godden
------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
Path: rphroy!caen!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!ukma!ra!nm1
From: n...@ra.MsState.Edu (Natalie Maynor)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: What is a grammar?
Message-ID: <nm1.67...@Ra.MsState.Edu>
Date: 13 Jun 91 11:41:30 GMT
References: <nm1.67...@Ra.MsState.Edu> <36...@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> <nm
Organization: English Department, Mississippi State University
Lines: 14
bur...@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Gramzde Collya nee Ballingas) writes:
>>Restrictive? Hardly. Grammar includes all the principles of phonology,
>>morphology, syntax, and perhaps semantics.
>Surely a grammar is a set of rules defining syntactic usage,
>with no semantic interpretation whatsoever. Therefore since people
Note that I did throw in the word "perhaps." I remember thinking that
I should probably have ended the sentence after "syntax" since I was
opening a new can of worms with that last part. The role of semantics
in grammar (if it has a role at all) is highly controversial.
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Shawn V. Hernan
>*a grammar* defines what sentences are part of your language, and which aren't
Yes, but what is a sentence? My posting stupid point. Perhaps understand.
Verblessness bad. According to what rules, though?
Your milage vary.
Shawn
--
Shawn Valentine Hernan |Wizard-wanna-be | STOP
Computing and Information Services|Systems & Networks |the war on drugs!
University of Pittsburgh |vale...@unix.cis.pitt.edu| It is a
(412) 624-6425 |vale...@PITTVMS.BITNET | WITCHHUNT!
Andrew Dunstan
|> The term 'grammar' is used in linguistic science to refer to ALL structured
|> components of a language--phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics,
|> phonetics, morphology. Of course, linguists also do use the term 'grammar'
|> in a more informal sense like many people to refer only to syntax.
|> The context of use (pragmatics) makes it clear which meaning is being used.
|> -Kurt Godden
|> ------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
|> Path: rphroy!caen!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!ukma!ra!nm1
|> From: n...@ra.MsState.Edu (Natalie Maynor)
|>
|>
|> >>Restrictive? Hardly. Grammar includes all the principles of phonology,
|> >>morphology, syntax, and perhaps semantics.
|>
|> >Surely a grammar is a set of rules defining syntactic usage,
|> >with no semantic interpretation whatsoever. Therefore since people
|>
|> Note that I did throw in the word "perhaps." I remember thinking that
|> I should probably have ended the sentence after "syntax" since I was
|> opening a new can of worms with that last part. The role of semantics
|> in grammar (if it has a role at all) is highly controversial.
|> --
|> --Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Hmm. I hesitated a bit before kicking off on this thread of discussion with
a (mildly :-) ) provocative contribution, but it has been interesting.
The seduction of words is well displayed here. We computer scientists have
borrowed (stolen?) formal grammars (a la Chomsky) from linguistics to
formalise the syntax of programming languages. Hence the temptation for us
to equate grammar with syntax only. I suspect that there is a similar
temptation
for linguists to say that what cannot be formalised in a grammar for a natural
language such as English is not the subject of grammar, but I will stand
corrected if this is not so.
I guess that the main idea I want to propound is that there is no simple
dividing line between grammar and not-grammar. For instance, to continue the
example of computer languages, many such languages (e.g. Pascal) have a rule
that states that an object must be declared before it is used. IMHO this is a
formal rule of the language and not a semantic rule, and is thus, to me,
a rule of grammar, despite the fact that it is not a rule of syntax. We should
not be fooled by the fact that we check for this in that part of a
compiler that
is referred to (arguably rather loosely) as the static semantic checker.
So, is a rule which prescribes the case of pronouns in certain contexts a rule
of grammar or not? I think it is, and clearly some others do not. None of us
should be too dogmatic about it.
Natalie Maynor
>>Restrictive? Hardly. Grammar includes all the principles of phonology,
>>morphology, syntax, and perhaps semantics.
> Surely a grammar is a set of rules defining syntactic usage,
>with no semantic interpretation whatsoever. Therefore since people
Note that I did throw in the word "perhaps." I remember thinking that
Andrew Dunstan
Jim, in a posting earlier today I suggested that this dividing line is
not very well-defined. Indeed, in a thoughtful piece of email to me ( to which
I have still not replied - sorry!) you suggested, or so I thought, much the
same thing:
our disagreement is about where
the boundary line comes between ungrammatical speech and grammatical
speech. Basically you sound conservative, I sound liberal, though these
labels don't really make sense.
(Damned right they don't. In fact, they are not antonyms to me. Anyway, I
could say that my definition of grammar is more liberal than yours! :-) )
Well, to our muttons. If there can be a rule of language which prohibits
certain sequences of words, how do we decide if this rule is one which
defines a sentence (grammar by your definition) or one which defines the
legality of a sentence( usage according to you)? You can't say "Look at the
grammar." because that is circular.
All this suggests to me that neat categorization of rules into grammar
and usage is not possible.
It's a bit messy, but then that's (natural) language for you!
G Toal
:Hmm. I hesitated a bit before kicking off on this thread of discussion with
:a (mildly :-) ) provocative contribution, but it has been interesting.
:
:The seduction of words is well displayed here. We computer scientists have
:borrowed (stolen?) formal grammars (a la Chomsky) from linguistics to
:formalise the syntax of programming languages. Hence the temptation for us
:to equate grammar with syntax only. I suspect that there is a similar
:temptation
:for linguists to say that what cannot be formalised in a grammar for a natural
:language such as English is not the subject of grammar, but I will stand
:corrected if this is not so.
I'm still reading up on the linguistic side, but I get the impression
that grammars with semantic actions (like the pascal case above) --
attribute grammars in computing -- *do* have an analogue in linguistics;
could a linguist take a few moments to explain about selectional rules
please? I'm also not sure, but think something called 'Theta-Theory'
might be related. This stuff is *hard* compared to computing! :-)
G
Jim Scobbie
>I suspect that there is a similar temptation
>for linguists to say that what cannot be formalised in a grammar for a natural
>language such as English is not the subject of grammar, but I will stand
>corrected if this is not so.
I'd agree with that on the whole.
>I guess that the main idea I want to propound is that there is no simple
>dividing line between grammar and not-grammar.
If I know what you're trying to say, I agree. I take it that you mean
it is very difficult in some cases to decide whether a native
speaker's intuitions about some word, phrase or sentence are
based on grammar or usage. But because the dividing line is difficult to
draw does not necessarily mean it does not exist.
See recent postings in sci.lang about the that-trace effect for typical
linguistics-internal discussion of this issue as regards some data.
Semantics in linguistics is a name for a formal level of representation,
encoding information about grammaticality, but in a different way from
the syntactic level of representation. Some models attempt to formalise
aspects of discourse, in order that better predictions can be made of
what a speaker's intuitions are.
>So, is a rule which prescribes the case of pronouns in certain contexts a rule
>of grammar or not? I think it is, and clearly some others do not.
It depends on the rule. For instance in English it seems to be more
common to see 1st person following other persons in conjunctions of
pronouns:
him and me
He and I
'I and you will go to the shops' seems peculiar to most speakers.
Now, is this grammar, or usage? I will stick to my position that it is
one or t'other, otherwise I would never get any linguistic formalisation done.
But which, I dunno. (nb Arabic has 1st person first, according to my copy
of the Arabian Nights.)
For sure though, don't assume that human language is anything much like
artificial computer languages, but that's aonther topic.
>None of us should be too dogmatic about it.
Now, that really *is* a rule of good usage! :-)
Jim Scobbie
>Jim, in a posting earlier today I suggested that this dividing line is
>not very well-defined. Indeed, in a thoughtful piece of email to me ( to which
>I have still not replied - sorry!) you suggested, or so I thought, much the
>same thing:
> our disagreement is about where
> the boundary line comes between ungrammatical speech and grammatical
> speech.
Yes, I just read your message, see my reply. This quote from my email to
you can be made more meaningful if I add some context. Your initial
posting, and much else in the group, was about whether or not
some phrase P was grammatical or ungrammatical. I contend that while
you are more likely to say P's status is one of grammaticality while
I am more likely to say it is one of usage. Where I or you would draw
the line is not an easy task. I's not sure there is a line sometimes,
but there are clearly two camps of linguistic knowledge, the mental personal
one and the social one. We each have mental processes and knowledge to enable
us to produce a complex language. I'm interested in building models of
that knowledge. In order that you and I can converse, and in order that
we can use or conversation to signal non-linguistic information about
ourselves, like our intelligence or social standing (or not :-))
we 'interfere' with our grammar. How we do this, I don't know.
Note this interference has only to do with the production of language,
not its understanding. That's why usage questions often get the phrase
attached 'but we all understand what's being said', I suspect, though
this is only part of it. ANyway, I digress.
>Well, to our muttons. If there can be a rule of language which prohibits
>certain sequences of words, how do we decide if this rule is one which
>defines a sentence (grammar by your definition) or one which defines the
>legality of a sentence( usage according to you)? You can't say "Look at the
>grammar." because that is circular.
>All this suggests to me that neat categorization of rules into grammar
>and usage is not possible.
>It's a bit messy, but then that's (natural) language for you!
You betcha!
We ought to be able to think of some tests to determine what the basis for
a linguistic judgement are: usage or grammar.
Note, this is not an esoteric argument. When you do fieldwork on some language
and ask what the sentence for 'I own the sun' is, for whatever reason,
you stand a pretty good chance of being told that the sentence is
impossible. The reason... the sun can't be owned. Now, I would say that is
usage, not grammar. My grammatical model would produce the sentence
'I own the sun' and I would claim it was well-formed.
When it comes to the structure of words, I'd go the other way. Most
English English speakers have not form comparable to 'aren't' for a
1st person singular subject, so the following sentence is impossible:
(1) *I aren't a computer scientist.
In this case, I wouldn't say this is usage, since it is a characteristic
of morphological systems to have unfillable gaps in the paradigm. This
is one such case.
Finally, cases like
(2) ?Me and him are going to the park
can be treated either way, and indeed linguists have done so. Personally
I feel that English does *not* require conjoined subject pronouns to be
in the nominative case, so (2) is grammatical. It is bad usage, however,
since it'll get you into trouble! Hence this strand, to discuss grammar
and usage. Why do I feel (2) is grammatical. I hear it used by people
all the time, if you ask they say it is ok, but not good written English,
the rule I suggest about case not appearing on conjuncts is, I believe,
an entirely normal thing for a language to do.
Oh, and this group is about usage, so if you feel (2) is
ungrammatical, you're posting to the wrong group ;-)
(3) He and I are going to lunch. Bye.--
Andrew Dunstan
|>
|> You betcha!
|>
|> We ought to be able to think of some tests to determine what the basis for
|> a linguistic judgement are: usage or grammar.
|>
|> Note, this is not an esoteric argument. When you do fieldwork on some
language
|> and ask what the sentence for 'I own the sun' is, for whatever reason,
|> you stand a pretty good chance of being told that the sentence is
|> impossible. The reason... the sun can't be owned. Now, I would say that is
|> usage, not grammar. My grammatical model would produce the sentence
|> 'I own the sun' and I would claim it was well-formed.
Yes, of course it's well-formed. Who says well-formed sentences have to make
sense. (God knows I have written plenty that don't. :-) ) But that doesn't make
it a matter of usage. I would say that it offends neither English grammar nor
English usage - it is just semantic nonsense.
|>
|> When it comes to the structure of words, I'd go the other way. Most
|> English English speakers have not form comparable to 'aren't' for a
|> 1st person singular subject, so the following sentence is impossible:
|>
|> (1) *I aren't a computer scientist.
I have often heard this.
|>
|> In this case, I wouldn't say this is usage, since it is a characteristic
|> of morphological systems to have unfillable gaps in the paradigm. This
|> is one such case.
|>
|> Finally, cases like
|>
|> (2) ?Me and him are going to the park
|>
|> can be treated either way, and indeed linguists have done so. Personally
|> I feel that English does *not* require conjoined subject pronouns to be
|> in the nominative case, so (2) is grammatical. It is bad usage, however,
|> since it'll get you into trouble! Hence this strand, to discuss grammar
|> and usage. Why do I feel (2) is grammatical. I hear it used by people
|> all the time, if you ask they say it is ok, but not good written English,
|> the rule I suggest about case not appearing on conjuncts is, I believe,
|> an entirely normal thing for a language to do.
Hmm. Your criterion for saying X is a matter of usage, not grammar is not
very clear to me. Please elucidate.
|>
|> Oh, and this group is about usage, so if you feel (2) is
|> ungrammatical, you're posting to the wrong group ;-)
|>
|> (3) He and I are going to lunch. Bye.--
I aren't having had my dinner yet neither.
Natalie Maynor
>In article <19...@csli.Stanford.EDU>, sco...@csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim
>Scobbie) writes:
>|> (2) ?Me and him are going to the park
>|>
>|> can be treated either way, and indeed linguists have done so. Personally
>|> I feel that English does *not* require conjoined subject pronouns to be
>|> in the nominative case, so (2) is grammatical. It is bad usage, however,
>|> since it'll get you into trouble! Hence this strand, to discuss grammar
>|> and usage. Why do I feel (2) is grammatical. I hear it used by people
>|> all the time, if you ask they say it is ok, but not good written English,
>|> the rule I suggest about case not appearing on conjuncts is, I believe,
>|> an entirely normal thing for a language to do.
>Hmm. Your criterion for saying X is a matter of usage, not grammar is not
>very clear to me. Please elucidate.
A sentence is grammatical if it is uttered naturally by native speakers
of the language and does not strike native listeners as "foreign." "Me
and him are going to the park" fits those criteria. It might strike a
listener as ugly, perhaps even enough to make the listener's skin crawl.
But it does not sound foreign. I was just looking over the assignment
my students are reading for tomorrow in Intro to Linguistics. Two of
the sections of the chapter are "What Grammaticality is Based On" and
"What Grammaticality is Not Based On." Here are a few samples of
ungrammatical strings of words given in the book (Fromkin and Rodman):
*The boy found in the house. *Girl the boy kissed. *Disa slept the
baby. *Emily drinks a water every day. *Robert is fond that his
children dislike TV. *The boy put the ball. That last one reminds me
of the question of the role of semantics in grammar. Is the constraint
that prohibits using the verb "put" without location syntactic or
semantic? The constraint is a syntactic sub-categorization of a lexical
item. But when we get into lexical items, aren't we moving into
semantics?
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
John Flanagan
>In article <nm1.67...@Ra.MsState.Edu> n...@ra.MsState.Edu (Natalie Maynor) writes:
>>of the language and does not strike native listeners as "foreign."
>Ex-president (or should this be Ex-President?) Reagan, during his second
>inaugural speech said, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"
>
>I think it was uttered naturally by him, and though I am not a native listener,
>it did not strike me as "foreign." (It did not strike me as "foreign," though
>it did sound wrong, but, then, I knew that using double negatives was accepted
>in spoken American English.) I think that it did not sound "foreign" to the
>native listeners as well. Since it fits the criteria you mention, would you,
>therefore, say that it is grammatically correct?
Bad example. "You ain't seen nothin' yet!" is a famous line from a
movie (_The Jazz Singer_?) It is famous for having been the first
spoken sentence in film. The line was also popularized in the 1970's
in a Top-40 song by Bachman-Turner Overdrive. There are probably
other well-known references from popular entertainment (did someone in
Baseball once say it?). Reagan was almost certainly using the phrase
as an intentionally folksy cliche, and did not use it in normal
speech.
Most Americans hearing the phrase probably don't think that it sounds
"foreign," since it is a distinctly American cliche, but they probably
also don't think that it sounds "correct."
--
John Flanagan Center for EUV Astrophysics
jo...@ssl.berkeley.edu University of California
(...!ucbvax!soc1.ssl!johnf) Berkeley, CA 94720
Roger Lustig
>In article <nm1.67...@Ra.MsState.Edu> n...@ra.MsState.Edu (Natalie Maynor) writes:
>>A sentence is grammatical if it is uttered naturally by native speakers
>>of the language and does not strike native listeners as "foreign." "Me
>>and him are going to the park" fits those criteria. It might strike a
>>listener as ugly, perhaps even enough to make the listener's skin crawl.
>>But it does not sound foreign. I was just looking over the assignment
>Ex-president (or should this be Ex-President?) Reagan, during his second
>inaugural speech said, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"
>I think it was uttered naturally by him, and though I am not a native listener,
>it did not strike me as "foreign." (It did not strike me as "foreign," though
>it did sound wrong, but, then, I knew that using double negatives was accepted
>in spoken American English.) I think that it did not sound "foreign" to the
>native listeners as well. Since it fits the criteria you mention, would you,
>therefore, say that it is grammatically correct? If so, could you please cite
>an authoritative source which supports your statement?
Sure: Al Jolson in _The Jazz Singer_ (the first all-talkie movie). He
said it. Ronbo was quoting it.
It is in fact perfectly acceptable English in some dialects, including
the Black one Jolson was parodying. (He was performing in blackface.)
Double negatives are found in some dialects, not others. The idiom you
quote, being a famous quotation, is acceptable in many more situations.
OK, I'm mixing up grammar and usage again. But this happens!
Especially with idioms, quotations of this sort, etc.
Reagan would never use no double negatives 8-) in ordinary speech
(unless he was really tired and trying to get out a long convoluted
sentence). His dialect does not allow for that.
>How would you classify the following sentence? "The boy ran the road down."
Well, if the boy actually did something like saying "The road sucks,"
that would be fine. Otherwise, the phrase "down the road" is malformed.
By placing "the road" next to the verb, you make it very likely to be a
direct object -- and "down" is left stranded, as you'd be expecting an
adeverb there, if anything.
Roger
Natalie Maynor
>Ex-president (or should this be Ex-President?) Reagan, during his second
>inaugural speech said, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"
>I think it was uttered naturally by him, and though I am not a native listener,
>it did not strike me as "foreign." (It did not strike me as "foreign," though
>it did sound wrong, but, then, I knew that using double negatives was accepted
>in spoken American English.) I think that it did not sound "foreign" to the
>native listeners as well. Since it fits the criteria you mention, would you,
>therefore, say that it is grammatically correct? If so, could you please cite
>an authoritative source which supports your statement?
>(An American source is acceptable.) ;-)
>I am not a linguist and am not familiar with the authority of Fromkin and
>Rodman. Are they considered an authority?
Yes, it is grammatically correct (albeit non-standard usage). What kind of
authoritative source are you looking for? I mentioned Fromkin and Rodman
because the book happened to be beside me at the moment. Their -An
Introduction to Language- is among the most widely used introductory
textbooks in linguistics in the U.S.
>How would you classify the following sentence? "The boy ran the road down."
I would categorize it as ungrammatical.
Now I've got to fill up some more lines. When I tried to send a reply to
this posting earlier, it bounced because I had quoted more lines than I
had added. I find that a rather silly rule, leading to verbosity of the
kind I'm indulging in right now. I wonder whether I've filled up enough
lines yet. Shall I add an asterisk picture of my dog? Maybe simple x's
will do.
x
x
x
x
x
x
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Andrew Dunstan
|> A sentence is grammatical if it is uttered naturally by native speakers
|> of the language and does not strike native listeners as "foreign." "Me
|> and him are going to the park" fits those criteria. It might strike a
|> listener as ugly, perhaps even enough to make the listener's skin crawl.
|> But it does not sound foreign. I was just looking over the assignment
|> my students are reading for tomorrow in Intro to Linguistics. Two of
|> the sections of the chapter are "What Grammaticality is Based On" and
|> "What Grammaticality is Not Based On." Here are a few samples of
|> ungrammatical strings of words given in the book (Fromkin and Rodman):
|> *The boy found in the house. *Girl the boy kissed. *Disa slept the
|> baby. *Emily drinks a water every day. *Robert is fond that his
|> children dislike TV. *The boy put the ball. That last one reminds me
|> of the question of the role of semantics in grammar. Is the constraint
|> that prohibits using the verb "put" without location syntactic or
|> semantic? The constraint is a syntactic sub-categorization of a lexical
|> item. But when we get into lexical items, aren't we moving into
|> semantics?
How do we decide what "sounds foreign"? Do we take a vote? What sounds
foreign to me might not to you. Does this mean that we have different
grammars?
This is not a very firm criterion. It does not strike me as much of a basis
for a formal theory of language.
Two of these examples strike me as grammatical sentences, although they
are nonsense: *Disa slept the baby. *Emily drinks a water every day.
They certainly strike me as less "foreign" than "Me and him went to the park."
Natalie Maynor
>In article <nm1.67...@Ra.MsState.Edu>, n...@ra.MsState.Edu (Natalie
>How do we decide what "sounds foreign"? Do we take a vote? What sounds
>foreign to me might not to you. Does this mean that we have different
>grammars?
Yes.
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Deven Naniwadekar
>of the language and does not strike native listeners as "foreign." "Me
>and him are going to the park" fits those criteria. It might strike a
>listener as ugly, perhaps even enough to make the listener's skin crawl.
>But it does not sound foreign. I was just looking over the assignment
Ex-president (or should this be Ex-President?) Reagan, during his second
inaugural speech said, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"
I think it was uttered naturally by him, and though I am not a native listener,
it did not strike me as "foreign." (It did not strike me as "foreign," though
it did sound wrong, but, then, I knew that using double negatives was accepted
in spoken American English.) I think that it did not sound "foreign" to the
native listeners as well. Since it fits the criteria you mention, would you,
therefore, say that it is grammatically correct? If so, could you please cite
an authoritative source which supports your statement?
(An American source is acceptable.) ;-)
I am not a linguist and am not familiar with the authority of Fromkin and
Rodman. Are they considered an authority?
>But when we get into lexical items, aren't we moving into
>semantics?
> --Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
How would you classify the following sentence? "The boy ran the road down."
Regards,
Deven
--
Deven Naniwadekar| -----+----- |"In the East the Master is considered to
de...@twg.com | | | be a living Buddha, but in Minneapolis,
PP ASEL | -|- | they wonder why He does not have a job!"
Status: ON HOLD |_______________|_________________________________________
G Toal
:
:I would categorize it as ungrammatical.
with German word order. (Der Junge lief der strasse entlang) [or similar]
:Now I've got to fill up some more lines. When I tried to send a reply to
:this posting earlier, it bounced because I had quoted more lines than I
:had added. I find that a rather silly rule, leading to verbosity of the
:kind I'm indulging in right now. I wonder whether I've filled up enough
:lines yet. Shall I add an asterisk picture of my dog? Maybe simple x's
:will do.
:x
:x
:x
:x
:x
:x
"My teacher likes me. Every time she marks my sums she puts
kisses next to them"
(Hint: try changing the '>' for another character next time.)
Natalie Maynor
o/.\___/"My teacher likes me. Every time she marks my sums she puts
o/.\___/kisses next to them"
o/.\___/(Hint: try changing the '>' for another character next time.)
Thanks to the various people who told me how to solve the problem of
quoting more than I'm adding. My dog helped me decide what to use in
place of >.
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
yz...@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Semantics certainly come into play. For example, people who play
Dungeons & Dragons have no problem using "to sleep" as a transitive verb;
"Disa slept the baby" means "Disa cast a _sleep_ spell on the baby"; while
"a water" is not in use now, "a soda" is, and with the advent of Evian,
maybe "a water" will join it. In the context of ordering drinks in a
restaurant, "I'll have a water" works fine. "*The boy put the ball" is
non-sensical, but "The boy put the shot" is not. "*Girl the boy kissed" is
not likely to become a recognizable part of English without a major overhaul
of sentence structure...
An interesting question is this: why is the distinction "put is a
transitive verb which requires a location as a second object" more semantic
and less syntactic than "put is a verb, not a preposition". Is the
grammatical distinction made because language change is less likely to
change the situation, or vice versa?
John Whelan
Devil's Advocate
PS-Here's a sentence which should sound like normal English to
a non-speaker, but is completely ungrammatical:
*Rat long whoever laughing because!
Andrew Dunstan
|> >How do we decide what "sounds foreign"? Do we take a vote? What sounds
|> >foreign to me might not to you. Does this mean that we have different
|> >grammars?
|>
|> --
Yes, what? (No, not yes sir! :-) ) I assume you mean yes, we have different
grammars. OK, I'll show you my grammar if you'll show me yours. :-)
However, I will say that ACCORDING TO MY GRAMMAR it is wrong to say
"Me and him went to the park."
|> --Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Natalie Maynor
>Yes, what? (No, not yes sir! :-) ) I assume you mean yes, we have different
>grammars. OK, I'll show you my grammar if you'll show me yours. :-)
>However, I will say that ACCORDING TO MY GRAMMAR it is wrong to say
>"Me and him went to the park."
Wrong? I didn't know we were talking about value judgements here. I
would give an immediate F to a student paper that included "me and him"
as the subject of a sentence. I require Standard American English usage
in student papers. But it does not sound foreign to me. I've heard
native speakers of English use "me and him" as a subject. I therefore
do not consider it unGRAMMATICAL English. "Me and him went park to" is
ungrammatical English.
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Andrew Dunstan
Who said anything about value judgements? If I say "Me and hime went park
to." does that mean that, since you have heard it from a native English
speaker it is grammatical? Or will you admit that native English speakers
can indeed make errors?
Natalie Maynor
>Who said anything about value judgements? If I say "Me and hime went park
>to." does that mean that, since you have heard it from a native English
>speaker it is grammatical? Or will you admit that native English speakers
>can indeed make errors?
Native speakers make slips of the tongue, a different kind of "error."
That, btw, is an interesting subject. Linguists have learned a good bit
about the way our brains store language from slips of the tongue. But
I won't go into that, since some people in this forum seem to be annoyed
by anything that touches upon scholarship. :-)
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
David Megginson
>Yes, what? (No, not yes sir! :-) ) I assume you mean yes, we have different
>grammars. OK, I'll show you my grammar if you'll show me yours. :-)
>
>However, I will say that ACCORDING TO MY GRAMMAR it is wrong to say
>"Me and him went to the park."
Well, not quite. I'd imagine that your grammar allows "Me and him went
to the park", but that you consider the construction either
non-standard or socially inferior. If you understand the sentence, and
you recognize it as something that a native speaker could say, it is
in your grammar.
Like Latin 2,000 years ago, English makes a strong distinction between
written/educated forms of the language and spoken/uneducated forms.
However, the Romans could tell the two apart--even Cicero let some
Vulgar Latin slip into his private correspondence with friends :-)
David
--
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ David Megginson da...@doe.utoronto.ca /
/ Centre for Medieval Studies meg...@vm.epas.utoronto.ca /
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Andrew Dunstan
da...@doe.utoronto.ca (David Megginson) writes:
|> >However, I will say that ACCORDING TO MY GRAMMAR it is wrong to say
|> >"Me and him went to the park."
|>
|> Well, not quite. I'd imagine that your grammar allows "Me and him went
|> to the park", but that you consider the construction either
|> non-standard or socially inferior. If you understand the sentence, and
|> you recognize it as something that a native speaker could say, it is
|> in your grammar.
We seem to be shifting the goalposts, here. Natalie's definition of
ungrammatical was something which "sounded foreign". Jim Scobie's
definition of grammar was something which defined the legal sentences
of a language.
IMHO, understandable =/= grammatical. There are plenty of sentences I
regard as ungrammatical which I can understand.
|>
|> Like Latin 2,000 years ago, English makes a strong distinction between
|> written/educated forms of the language and spoken/uneducated forms.
|> However, the Romans could tell the two apart--even Cicero let some
|> Vulgar Latin slip into his private correspondence with friends :-)
|>
Of course. The Greeks even more so. I do it myself, although less than
some (most?) others. I don't like equating "written" with "educated",
though. Still, I don't see where that gets us in this debate.
Roger Lustig
>In article <nm1.67...@Ra.MsState.Edu>, n...@ra.MsState.Edu (Natalie
>Maynor) writes:
>|> and...@chook.adelaide.edu.au (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
>|> >Yes, what? (No, not yes sir! :-) ) I assume you mean yes, we have different
>|> >grammars. OK, I'll show you my grammar if you'll show me yours. :-)
>|> >However, I will say that ACCORDING TO MY GRAMMAR it is wrong to say
>|> >"Me and him went to the park."
>|> Wrong? I didn't know we were talking about value judgements here. I
>|> would give an immediate F to a student paper that included "me and him"
>|> as the subject of a sentence. I require Standard American English usage
>|> in student papers. But it does not sound foreign to me. I've heard
>|> native speakers of English use "me and him" as a subject. I therefore
>|> do not consider it unGRAMMATICAL English. "Me and him went park to" is
>|> ungrammatical English.
>Who said anything about value judgements? If I say "Me and hime went park
>to." does that mean that, since you have heard it from a native English
>speaker it is grammatical? Or will you admit that native English speakers
>can indeed make errors?
No. Not THAT particular error. Native speakers of English, when
engaged in speaking or writing (as opposed to making up arguments about
language) CANNOT make that particular error. Doesn't happen.
Only someone TRYING to produce a non-grammatical sentence can produce
that one.
Roger
Roger Lustig
>|> >However, I will say that ACCORDING TO MY GRAMMAR it is wrong to say
>|> >"Me and him went to the park."
>|> Well, not quite. I'd imagine that your grammar allows "Me and him went
>|> to the park", but that you consider the construction either
>|> non-standard or socially inferior. If you understand the sentence, and
>|> you recognize it as something that a native speaker could say, it is
>|> in your grammar.
>We seem to be shifting the goalposts, here. Natalie's definition of
>ungrammatical was something which "sounded foreign". Jim Scobie's
>definition of grammar was something which defined the legal sentences
>of a language.
>IMHO, understandable =/= grammatical. There are plenty of sentences I
>regard as ungrammatical which I can understand.
Only according to your private definition of "grammatical!"
You might not regard these sentences as correct USAGE. But if you
encounter something like a misplaced article ("Dog the ran down the
street," for example), you will generally get a warning message from
your language interpreting mechanism that something is VERY wrong -- and
that "understanding" is something that should be reserved for later,
when things have been fixed.
Not the case with a "Me and him went..." sentence.
>|> Like Latin 2,000 years ago, English makes a strong distinction between
>|> written/educated forms of the language and spoken/uneducated forms.
>|> However, the Romans could tell the two apart--even Cicero let some
>|> Vulgar Latin slip into his private correspondence with friends :-)
>Of course. The Greeks even more so. I do it myself, although less than
>some (most?) others. I don't like equating "written" with "educated",
>though. Still, I don't see where that gets us in this debate.
It's just an observation -- there's a standard "written" usage, much
less of one for spoken utterances.
Roger
Andrew Dunstan
(Roger Lustig) writes:
|> >We seem to be shifting the goalposts, here. Natalie's definition of
|> >ungrammatical was something which "sounded foreign". Jim Scobie's
|> >definition of grammar was something which defined the legal sentences
|> >of a language.
|>
|> >IMHO, understandable =/= grammatical. There are plenty of sentences I
|> >regard as ungrammatical which I can understand.
|>
|> Only according to your private definition of "grammatical!"
|>
I don't have a private definition of "grammatical!", only of
"grammatical". :-) But then, so does everyone else, even you, Roger.
|> You might not regard these sentences as correct USAGE. But if you
|> encounter something like a misplaced article ("Dog the ran down the
|> street," for example), you will generally get a warning message from
|> your language interpreting mechanism that something is VERY wrong -- and
|> that "understanding" is something that should be reserved for later,
|> when things have been fixed.
|>
|> Not the case with a "Me and him went..." sentence.
|>
Here we go round the mulberry bush ...
David Megginson
>da...@doe.utoronto.ca (David Megginson) writes:
>
>|> >However, I will say that ACCORDING TO MY GRAMMAR it is wrong to say
>|> >"Me and him went to the park."
>|>
>|> Well, not quite. I'd imagine that your grammar allows "Me and him went
>|> to the park", but that you consider the construction either
>|> non-standard or socially inferior. If you understand the sentence, and
>|> you recognize it as something that a native speaker could say, it is
>|> in your grammar.
>
>We seem to be shifting the goalposts, here. Natalie's definition of
>ungrammatical was something which "sounded foreign". Jim Scobie's
>definition of grammar was something which defined the legal sentences
>of a language.
>
>IMHO, understandable =/= grammatical. There are plenty of sentences I
>regard as ungrammatical which I can understand.
Absolutely right. I could write the sentence "Sees Bob mountain the",
and you would probably understand it, even though it is not
grammatical.
On the other hand, if you heard "Bob done seen that ol' mountain", you
might not consider it educated speech, but you would not think that
the speaker's first language was not English--it would not sound
foreign to you, as Natalie said. That's why I wrote, and you quoted
:-), "If you understand the sentence, AND YOU RECOGNIZE IT AS
SOMETHING THAT A NATIVE SPEAKER COULD SAY, it is in your grammar."
Sentences like "I don't need no fucking shit" are in my grammar, and
even though I don't use them, I recognize the speakers as native
speakers of English.
Jane Philcox
>Maynor) writes:
>|> and...@chook.adelaide.edu.au (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
>|> >However, I will say that ACCORDING TO MY GRAMMAR it is wrong to say
>|> >"Me and him went to the park."
>|> Wrong? I didn't know we were talking about value judgements here.
>Who said anything about value judgements?
You did. The use of the word "wrong" is an implied value judgement.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion in this thread. I would hazard
a guess that Andrew, like most of the rest of the non-linguists in the world,
regards grammars as prescriptive, whereas Natalie, like all the linguists I've
met or read, regards them as descriptive. Sorry to flog the obvious, for
those of you who have heard all this before, but there are people adding to
this thread who have apparently never heard of the old prescriptive vs
descriptive argument of grammarians. I can't remember when it happened, but
at some stage in the history of linguistics the idea that one was prescribing
"correct" usage in a language gave way to the idea that one was describing the
usage of the language that was actually happening. One of the reasons that
this happened was because no-one could decide what was correct. It was such
a hideously subjective sort of thing, and by the time you had agreed that some
usage was correct, some other usage had come into being for you to argue about
all over again.
This, of course, applies principally to spoken language. The difference
between that and written English is nicely illustrated by Natalie's next
remark:
>|>I would give an immediate F to a student paper that included "me and him"
>|> as the subject of a sentence. I require Standard American English usage
>|> in student papers.
Standard American English usage, as Natalie uses the term, is the variety of
English that is normally written by educated Americans. There is an element
of prescription in this. However, it is much more a description of an existing
type of English, than a prescription of how it should be done, and changes from
time to time as the language changes. It's obviously much easier to document
the actual grammar of something that's written, than something spoken, so that
more is known about it. Also, people tend to try a little harder when they're
writing, and the old bugbear of the prescriptive grammarian is still peering
over many a school-teacher's shoulder! So that written English tends to be
more standardised than spoken. (I must say I think Natalie a bit unkind
to give an automatic F - if that means fail, as it does here - for what could
perhaps be considered merely an inappropriate use of a variety of English! :-))
>If I say "Me and hime went park to." does that mean that, since you have heard
>it from a native English speaker it is grammatical? Or will you admit that
>native English speakers can indeed make errors?
If, indeed, that remark had been made in conversation, rather than in a
discussion about grammar, it would have to be noted as a variant of usage,
possibly local, or possibly personal. However, as some other contributor
remarked, that is, in fact, not a sentence that any native English speaker
would be likely to say. So, yes, linguists, like Natalie, will say things like:
>|> I've heard native speakers of English use "me and him" as a subject. I
>|> therefore do not consider it unGRAMMATICAL English. "Me and him went
>|> park to" is ungrammatical English.
thus distinguishing between, and labelling as "grammatical" and "ungrammatical"
usages that would be normal or otherwise to a native speaker, without making
any judgement at all about the correctness of the usage.
I wonder if it would help at all if there were some terms other than
"grammatical" and "ungrammatical," with their emotive overtones, to designate
these distinctions in usage. Are there? Does anyone know?
Regards, Jane.
--
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Andrew Dunstan
ja...@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jane Philcox) writes:
|> In article <37...@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>
and...@chook.adelaide.edu.au (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
|> >In article <nm1.67...@Ra.MsState.Edu>, n...@ra.MsState.Edu (Natalie
|> >Maynor) writes:
|> >|> and...@chook.adelaide.edu.au (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
|>
|> >|> >However, I will say that ACCORDING TO MY GRAMMAR it is wrong to say
|> >|> >"Me and him went to the park."
|>
|> >|> Wrong? I didn't know we were talking about value judgements here.
|>
|> >Who said anything about value judgements?
|>
|> You did. The use of the word "wrong" is an implied value judgement.
|>
I wondered if this would get a bite! Linguistics is not my field, but I was
once a student of moral philosophy. IMHO wrong =/= bad. By wrong I simply
mean that it is not on conformity to the rules. Substitute "ungrammatical" if
you will.
|> There seems to be a great deal of confusion in this thread. I would hazard
|> a guess that Andrew, like most of the rest of the non-linguists in
the world,
|> regards grammars as prescriptive, whereas Natalie, like all the
linguists I've
|> met or read, regards them as descriptive.
There is a delicious irony in linguists using "grammar" in a sense that is
not that intended by non-linguists. They are highly prescriptive about its
meaning.
|>
|> I wonder if it would help at all if there were some terms other than
|> "grammatical" and "ungrammatical," with their emotive overtones, to
designate
|> these distinctions in usage. Are there? Does anyone know?
I tend to think that it is the linguists who should vacate the field
rather than to appropriate the word as a term of art.
David Mark
>
>to." does that mean that, since you have heard it from a native English
>speaker it is grammatical? Or will you admit that native English speakers
>can indeed make errors?
Under my idea of cognitive linguistics, anything that
any native English speaker says (when not making parenthetical remarks
about impossible sentences!) is a valid part of the English language.
"Errors" are with respect to some norm, such as Oxford English, or
Standard American English. But what ever a native English speaker says
when speaking English is part of the English language. Now I don't
believe that any native speaker would say "Me went park to", unless they
were fooling around, playing Tarzan, or being a linguiist making up unsayable
sentences. But "Me and Joe went to the park" seems like something that
many native English speakers would say.
David Mark
dm...@sun.acsu.buffalo.edu
[Sorry about posting 2 weeks late!]